Comments

I didn’t go into the original thread on Reddit, for the purpose of staying sane. I really liked your initial link from the psychiatrist, though. Just don’t read the comments – while some are worthwhile, a lot are from guys who can’t figure out how it could possibly be rape if she didn’t say no, and fail to process a really good explanation not only of enthusiastic consent, but the idea that such consent can be done in a sexy way, so it doesn’t have to be like taking a moment out to sign a contract.

I would add to that response: a lot of rapists report they didn’t hear a “no” while their victim reports saying it more than once. It’s just stupid to take the word of a criminal in describing his self-confessed crime, isn’t it?

Then again, the guy taking his word for it confessed to engaging in sex acts with women who hadn’t said no clearly, so he probably IS a rapist. I’m not denying our culture sends men confusing messages, but if you don’t care whether someone wants it just so long as you can’t be put in jail for it, there’s something very wrong with your brain, and you are a rapist.

Simply put, the Readercon convention committee (concom) apologized to the harassed (Genevieve Valentine and Kate Kligman), have overturned the boards decision, PERMABANNED René Walling and the board resigned or are in the process of resigning.

I like this apology for several reasons.

Personal responsibility; the concom ADMITS it screw-up; no half-assed excuses or some wishy-washy tripe. A good, sincere apology admits wrong-doing and those involved accept responsibility. This statement says that ‘We screwed up and we’re sorry we let you down’.

They were personal: The apologized DIRECTLY to Genevieve Valentine and Kate Kligman for not doing their job and for letting them down with their failure to act appropriately. This shows that they understand that there were actually PEOPLE involved in this.

They expanded; they apologized to the COMMUNITY. LOTS of people were pi$$ed about what happened and that this guy got (Initially) a slap on the wrist. This shows they value their con-goers and their safety while attending their cons.

Promises of action: they promise(?) to take action to protect people from harassment and are requesting that those who want to put in their two cents if they want to attend their next board meeting in September.

They specify the actions: they say EXACTLY WHAT they are going to do, what they are going to change and how they will prepare for it in the future. On top of that, they are granting REFUNDS.

‘While it is usually Readercon’s policy not to issue refunds for purchased memberships, we will provide a full refund to anyone who purchased a membership for Readercon 24 and now feels that Readercon is not a convention they feel comfortable attending.’

In short, they accept the consequences for their actions (or lack thereof) and will follow through.

All in all, their response is the kind that i would expect (and hope for) from people, groups, etc. who negated on their duty of due diligence on such matters as harassment. For that, I commend their willingness to accept responsibility, the consequences of their actions and their willingness to correct matters.